Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[Firetruck41]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160609-usdrive.html


See the chart at http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01bb090eb395970d-popup

You really have to wonder what these people are smoking. Talk about assuming unrealistic improvements. To get H2 FCVs anywhere close to that of BEVs, you will need to achieve near-ideal efficiencies of 120% for hydrolysis and 83% for the fuel cell as well as eliminating the massive losses associated with compression, expansion, cooling, etc. required for fueling the vehicles. Sorry, but since no solutions which achieve these levels exist in the lab or even in proposed technology, I wouldn't be at all surprised if NONE of these are solved in this century, if ever.

As of today, there is a 50:1 cost ratio for the fuels for renewable-fueled H2 FCVs versus BEVs. Sure, you can try to imagine that difference away, but that doesn't make it disappear.

Reg, I think you should email them and point out all the flaws in their methodology. I'm sure you must have read it all before reaching your conclusions, but on the off chance you didn't, here's the report itself (8.5Mb): file:///home/chronos/u-45ee52b134db40e848b38fe3739177d17760275d/Downloads/C2G_Report.pdf

or if that doesn't work, you can get there via the link at the bottom of this page: https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-c2g-2016-report

The whole thing runs 168 pages plus 13 pages of cites, and I haven't had a chance to dig into it yet.

If lots of pages of info means some one is "right", I'll bet the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart will be a great sales success! I'm sure lots of people did tons of research and thought they were on to the next great idea for Chrysler! (Insert Pontiac Aztec, Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet, Acura ZDX...)

 

[GRA]

Reg, I think you should email them and point out all the flaws in their methodology.

GRA commits the Burden of Proof fallacy. No, the burden of proof for outlandish claims which are WAY outside the existing body of knowledge falls with those making the claims, not with those who eye it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The whole thing runs 168 pages plus 13 pages of cites, and I haven't had a chance to dig into it yet.

Gee, it MUST be accurate, then! :roll:

No, it must present the data and methodology that will allow someone to know what assumptions were used and make an informed estimate of the accuracy of the conclusions, instead of one based solely on pre-existing opinions. I freely admit that I lack the both the technical knowledge and data to make a judgement of the science etc., and have to rely on experts in most areas outside my knowledge base as do most people, using my own judgement to evaluate competing claims, particularly within the areas where I do have some knowledge (such as the cost and design factors that go into off-grid systems). I am not a chemist, physicist, auto design or production/electrical/petroleum engineer, agronomist or economist, nor do I produce hydrogen/fuel cells/PV modules/wind turbines/biogas/gasoline/steel/aluminum/batteries etc., or know the costs, materials, energy inputs and emissions required for same. The people collectively involved in writing the report do have that knowledge and data. Do you?

Just for an intro, starting on page 8 you'll find the section on "Methodology: Study Scope, Definitions and Major Assumptions," which says, among a lot else,

To narrow the scope of the evaluation, this C2G analysis focuses on the midsize class of LDVs (such as the Chevrolet Malibu, Dodge Dart, and Ford Fusion). Results for other vehicle classes will differ from the results reported from this study, but the evaluation of the midsize class should provide a general
understanding and direction of the lifecycle results for other LDV classes. Fuel and vehicle options were
limited to opportunities that could meet the demand of approximately 10% of the fleet.

Tables 1 and 2 outline the vehicle and fuel technologies considered in this analysis, which include ICEVs,
HEVs, PHEVs, FCEVs, and BEVs operating on a variety of fuel types.

The C2G assessment consists of two major elements: an evaluation of lifecycle GHG emissions and
energy use for each pathway and an assessment of the costs associated with each pathway. The GHG and
vehicle and fuel cost assessments are in turn used to model the cost of avoided GHG emissions. To
support these evaluations, this analysis relies on an assessment of conventional and alternative vehicle
platforms, including an evaluation of vehicle platform itself, the cost of the vehicle, and the fuel economy
of the vehicle. This analysis also relies on evaluations and cost modeling of fuel technologies. A
technology readiness assessment (discussed in Section 3.3) rounds out the analysis to provide a more
comprehensive picture of how the pathways fare against each other.

In this analysis, “cost” is defined as policy-neutral final transaction cost. In this context, costs are the final
cost/price to the consumer, excluding tax on the final product (e.g., fuel sales tax) and/or credits
(e.g., vehicle subsidies). This framework intentionally excludes policy interventions to address
technology or market challenges and opportunities. Throughout this report, costs are reported in 2013$
using the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product to
convert costs to consistent 2013 dollars (BEA 2015, Table 1.1.9).

Cost estimates for both vehicles and fuels are based on high-volume production (“at/above optimal
scale”), which is intentionally not standardized across vehicle-fuel pathways, since scale is recognized as
inherently a function of the technology/production pathway. Some examples of fuel and vehicle
technology scale/volume assumptions used in the study are shown in Table 3. A current technology case,
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, HIGH VOLUME, was modeled to represent vehicle model year (MY) 2015 and to
characterize fuel production technologies available in 2015, with costs projected at high volume. In some
instances, a sensitivity low-volume case, CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, LOW VOLUME, was evaluated to
calculate cost of new vehicles at low volume (e.g., between 10,000 and 100,000 units of FCEVs) and low volume fuel production/distribution (e.g., hydrogen). The FUTURE TECHNOLOGY, HIGH VOLUME case represents MY2025–2030 vehicles and fuels projected at high volume.

Though the study does consider low-volume costs in some instances, the primary evaluation is of vehicles
and fuels at high production volume, and the costs of transitioning to high-volume production are not
considered.

And so on through GHG emissions and energy use LCA, vehicle and fuel modeling, before getting into the details.

 

[WetEV]

No, it must present the data and methodology that will allow someone to know what assumptions were used and make an informed estimate of the accuracy of the conclusions, instead of one based solely on pre-existing opinions.

Sure. All 2015 pricing in the paper. Real car prices are for 2016. A BEV210, with new range of 210 miles, very similar to the Bolt, has a cost of $43,056, according to this paper. Chevy is saying they will sell for $37,500. A FCEV in this paper will sell for $30,264, Toyota is saying price is $57,500.

I agree that comparing a current production BEV with a prototype FCEV isn't quite fair, as it is at least possible that the FCEV cost can be reduced faster than the production BEV.

On the other hand, the production BEV already has a market niche. The FCEV doesn't.

I suspect the real long term application of fuel cells is in light aviation. Cars are just a good test bed.

 

[RegGuheert]

No, it must present the data and methodology that will allow someone to know what assumptions were used and make an informed estimate of the accuracy of the conclusions, instead of one based solely on pre-existing opinions.

It seems you are having difficulty with this, but I have pointed out the absurdity of what is provided in the chart you posted. As I said, it is so absurd, that it seems the authors are on something. Clearly their pre-existing opinions are clouding their judgments. Let's have a closer look at the chart you linked:

I am looking specifically at the items labeled BEV210 and H2FCEV on the chart.

Let's start with the black "Current Technology" line. This indicates that with "current" (2015) technology, the lifecycle cost of an H2 FCV is LOWER than a 210-mile BEV. Let's list the problems with this:
- Toyota has stated that they DO NOT KNOW how to mass-produce fuel cells in high volume. Given that, how in the world can you estimate fossil-fuel consumption in high-volume production? The simple answer is that we have NO IDEA how much fossil fuel is required to manufacture H2 FCVs in high quantities. In other words, they are simply pulling numbers out of thin air here.
- As far as we currently know, it takes MUCH MORE fossil fuel to manufacture an H2 FCV than a BEV.
- Using current technology it costs over 50X per mile as much to manufacture H2 fuel from renewable sources and over 15X as much from fossil fuel sources as the manufacture fuel for a BEV from renewable sources. That implies that SIGNIFICANTLY MORE fossil fuels are consumed to produce the H2 fuel than the BEV fuel.

Simply put, there is NO WAY that the lifetime fossil-fuel consumption of H2 FCVs is currently lower than a 210-mile BEV using current technology.

Next up: The improvement by vehicle efficiency gain. The little chart indicates that they might be the same. Really?
- Simply put, there is VERY LITTLE vehicle efficiency gain left to be had in BEVs. The 27% shown in the chart is probably about right.
- OTOH, the efficiency of the fuel cell in an H2 FCV is currently operates at an average of around 40%. The theoretical maximum efficiency for combining H2 and O2 to make H2O is 83%. Right there is a factor of over 2X in vehicle efficiency which, in theory, could be had by H2 FCVs over BEVs.

Simply put, the idea that H2 FCVs are ALREADY as optimized in terms of efficiency as BEVs is simply pure fantasy. (This goes back to the top black line more than anything.)

Finally, the biggy: That BEVs and H2 FCVs will end up at the same point when it comes to fossil-fuel consumption.
- Currently, it takes about 250 Wh of electricity to propel a BEV one mile. Since it takes about 50 kWh to produce one kg of H2, it takes about 1000 Wh of electricity to propel an H2 BEV that same mile. (And lest anyone wants to imagine that wasting 75% of the energy is no big deal as long as the source is renewable, I will point out that it is a VERY BIG DEAL. ALL renewable technologies are struggling to achieve a high enough EROEI to actually allow them to power the society of the future. An overall EROEI needed to do that is above about 10:1. Unfortunately, H2 FCVs currently waste 3/4 of what is produced. In other words, if you power them from renewable sources, it is very much equivalent to reducing the EROEI of the source by a factor of 4.)
- The reason the efficiency of BEVs is because Li-ion batteries TODAY have a round-trip energy efficiency of over 97%. That is possible because there is NO chemical reaction involved in the charging and discharging of the battery. OTOH, there is no getting around the fact that the creation and consumption of H2 FCV fuel requires TWO chemical reactions. In each case, the current state-of-the-art limits our efficiency to about 50% of the theoretical maximum for each. We have NO IDEA IF or WHEN sufficient breakthroughs will occur to allow us to achieve close to maximum efficiency from BOTH reactions. For this paper to simply ASSUME that it will happen is a real stretch. (Do we know of ANY industrial chemical reactions which we currently cause to happen with no energy loss?)
- Rapid fueling, the ONE big claim-to-fame of H2 FCVs, requires SIGNIFICANT ENERGY to accomplish to allow the fuel to be compressed to very high pressures and to be cooled to very low levels to prevent the vehicle tank from being melted when fueled. If you want to imagine this energy loss to disappear, you MUST show that there are, at the very least, theoretical approaches which allow these losses to be eliminated.

The bottom line is that it is reasonable to assume that technology will allow the 4:1 gap with currently exists between the creation of fuel for H2 FCVs and BEVs to be reduced to 3:1 or perhaps 2:1, but to imagine, with no credible roadmap provided, that it will simply disappear is, as I said, completely unwarranted.

No, this study is not based on actual facts. Rather, much of it is simply made up out of thin air. My impression is that the conclusions were foregone and the analysis was crafted to match those conclusions.

 

[lorenfb]

Simply put, there is NO WAY that the lifetime fossil-fuel consumption of H2 FCVs is currently lower than a 210-mile BEV using current technology.

You continue to focus on long term efficiency in the near term. If that were the key issue, ICEVs would be banned
in the near term. To move from ICEVs requires a continual small step function change and not an impulse
function on a basically static system (the consumers' preferences), i.e. a gradual transition, which may involve
FCEVs, as battery technology possibly evolves over time just as hybrids have initiated the first "step" in the
reduction of fossil fuel consumption.

Bottom Line: Reducing fossil fuel consumption in the long term requires satisfying consumers' preferences
in vehicle options in the near term, one of which may be the FCEV.

 

[GRA]

No, it must present the data and methodology that will allow someone to know what assumptions were used and make an informed estimate of the accuracy of the conclusions, instead of one based solely on pre-existing opinions.

Sure. All 2015 pricing in the paper. Real car prices are for 2016. A BEV210, with new range of 210 miles, very similar to the Bolt, has a cost of $43,056, according to this paper. Chevy is saying they will sell for $37,500. A FCEV in this paper will sell for $30,264, Toyota is saying price is $57,500.

I agree that comparing a current production BEV with a prototype FCEV isn't quite fair, as it is at least possible that the FCEV cost can be reduced faster than the production BEV.

On the other hand, the production BEV already has a market niche. The FCEV doesn't.

I suspect the real long term application of fuel cells is in light aviation. Cars are just a good test bed.

You misconstrued a few items. First, the cars are generic midsize (Malibu/Fusion/Camry etc.), not C-segment like the Bolt. Also, all dollar values in the paper have been normalized to 2013 with inflation accounted for. Haven't gotten as far as the car prices yet (I'm about in section 4), but I kinda doubt that they're saying that a 2015 current tech mid- (or any other) size FCEV in low production volumes will sell for $30,264. Note that they defined the low volume current tech case to be 10,000 FCEVs on the road, and so far there's only around 250 Mirais, 100 Tucsons and some number of previous generation (Clarity/F-Cell/FCHV-ADV etc.) FCEVs on the road in the U.S., so they're talking about a 20x increase from the existing numbers for even the low volume case. I'll get back to you once I find the cost figures you cite and see what they refer to.

 

[GRA]

No, it must present the data and methodology that will allow someone to know what assumptions were used and make an informed estimate of the accuracy of the conclusions, instead of one based solely on pre-existing opinions.

It seems you are having difficulty with this, but I have pointed out the absurdity of what is provided in the chart you posted. As I said, it is so absurd, that it seems the authors are on something. Clearly their pre-existing opinions are clouding their judgments. Let's have a closer look at the chart you linked:

I am looking specifically at the items labeled BEV210 and H2FCEV on the chart.

Let's start with the black "Current Technology" line. This indicates that with "current" (2015) technology, the lifecycle cost of an H2 FCV is LOWER than a 210-mile BEV. Let's list the problems with this:
- Toyota has stated that they DO NOT KNOW how to mass-produce fuel cells in high volume. Given that, how in the world can you estimate fossil-fuel consumption in high-volume production? The simple answer is that we have NO IDEA how much fossil fuel is required to manufacture H2 FCVs in high quantities. In other words, they are simply pulling numbers out of thin air here.
- As far as we currently know, it takes MUCH MORE fossil fuel to manufacture an H2 FCV than a BEV.

Their conclusions, based on the evidence they have, says different. They're experts, which experts are you basing your opinions on? See, we both depend on experts.

- Using current technology it costs over 50X per mile as much to manufacture H2 fuel from renewable sources and over 15X as much from fossil fuel sources as the manufacture fuel for a BEV from renewable sources. That implies that SIGNIFICANTLY MORE fossil fuels are consumed to produce the H2 fuel than the BEV fuel.

Simply put, there is NO WAY that the lifetime fossil-fuel consumption of H2 FCVs is currently lower than a 210-mile BEV using current technology. <snip rest>

This is cradle to grave, not well to wheels, so your premise is flawed. It includes all costs of extraction, refining, production, transport, use, and recycling of the fuel and the car itself. I'll let you know what I think of the report ONCE I'VE READ IT ALL. ISTM you're employing the Red Queen method: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards." When we first heard about El Hierro, I was somewhat skeptical of the initial claims for 100% renewable, but held off my conclusions until I had a lot more info. As more info appeared (much of which you were responsible for providing) and I did some calcs, my doubts increased, and they continued to do so as the design of the pumped storage reservoir was reduced from what I felt was an already inadequate size, given the wind resource variability and the demand. Once we got some operational data and learned that some of the reservoir capacity was being used for purposes other than electricity generation, it was clear that the numbers just didn't add up.

I'm engaging in a similar exercise here, and will be happy to discuss the numbers and conclusions with anyone who's actually bothered to read the whole paper, once I've done so and had time to consider it.[/quote]

 

[RegGuheert]

This is cradle to grave, not well to wheels, so your premise is flawed. It includes all costs of extraction, refining, production, transport, use, and recycling of the fuel and the car itself.

I fully understand that they are talking about cradle-to-grave. If you will read my reply carefully, you will see that I covered the authors' bold assumptions about fossil-fuel-content for mass-production of devices which Toyota tells us they do not know how to mass produce.

Again, the belief that the fossil-fuel content of manufacturing an H2 FCV will somehow magically in the future end up being lower than that of a BEV is nothing more than blind faith. And how close H2 FCVs can come to BEVs in the far future in terms of energy usage per mile is really anyone's guess. So far, the so-called "experts" promoting H2 FCVs have been wearing extremely rose-colored glasses. I have documented their inability to predict the future in some detail in this thread.

It's amazing that you are able to see past their miserable track record to know that they have suddenly become clairvoyant!

 

[GRA]

This is cradle to grave, not well to wheels, so your premise is flawed. It includes all costs of extraction, refining, production, transport, use, and recycling of the fuel and the car itself.

I fully understand that they are talking about cradle-to-grave. If you will read my reply carefully, you will see that I covered the authors' bold assumptions about fossil-fuel-content for mass-production of devices which Toyota tells us they do not know how to mass produce.

Yes, that is an issue which will need to be solved., and Toyota and others are working to do so. Not that that's any guarantee that they will succeed, but it's a necessary step to move to the sort of volumes they're talking about.

Again, the belief that the fossil-fuel content of manufacturing an H2 FCV will somehow magically in the future end up being lower than that of a BEV is nothing more than blind faith. And how close H2 FCVs can come to BEVs in the far future in terms of energy usage per mile is really anyone's guess. So far, the so-called "experts" promoting H2 FCVs have been wearing extremely rose-colored glasses. I have documented their inability to predict the future in some detail in this thread.

It's amazing that you are able to see past their miserable track record to know that they have suddenly become clairvoyant!

Reg, I assume nothing of the sort. All forecasts of likely future technical advances are just that, forecasts, not guarantees. Personally, I routinely downgrade all forecasts by 25-50%, unless a range of possible outcomes (low to high) is provided (as in this case), and often even then. If you want to talk miserable track records, if the forecasts of PEV adoption rates had been accurate back in 2010, Nissan would have sold 500k LEAFs here in just a couple of years, GM would have sold 60k Volts in their second year of production, and we'd have had a million PEVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2015. Should I then conclude that because all of these forecasts were wildly optimistic, that BEVs/PHEVs are failures, or should I instead recognize that there are inevitable unknowns that may slow things down, or occasionally even speed them up?

 

[RegGuheert]

If you want to talk miserable track records, if the forecasts of PEV adoption rates had been accurate back in 2010, Nissan would have sold 500k LEAFs here in just a couple of years, GM would have sold 60k Volts in their second year of production, and we'd have had a million PEVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2015. Should I then conclude that because all of these forecasts were wildly optimistic, that BEVs/PHEVs are failures, or should I instead recognize that there are inevitable unknowns that may slow things down, or occasionally even speed them up?

The paper you linked does NOT forecast adoption rates. It forecasts future technology capabilities FAR beyond that of H2 FCV technology. We both know that they CANNOT know when or if the necessary technology will be achieved.

OTOH, the forecasts they have made for BEV technology are both modest and reasonable. As we all know, BEVs do not need significant technological improvement for widespread adoption.

 

[lorenfb]

As we all know, BEVs do not need significant technological improvement for widespread adoption.

Really? How about charging times, battery life, battery costs, battery size, and battery weight?
Present day BEVs might be considered in engineering terms as a brute-force solution to a transportation
problem, i.e. using a huge costly battery with older technology - an electric motor.

So, in your view what will improve "widespread adoption", given the present "anemic" adoption of BEVs?

 

[RegGuheert]

As we all know, BEVs do not need significant technological improvement for widespread adoption.

Really? How about charging times, battery life, battery costs, battery size, and battery weight?

Yes, really. The generation of BEVs going into mass production today have 200-mile batteries that weigh 960 pounds and likely will last 200,000 miles.

 

[WetEV]

You misconstrued a few items. First, the cars are generic midsize (Malibu/Fusion/Camry etc.), not C-segment like the Bolt.

Yes, a fair comparison would point out that the Bolt is two inches smaller wheelbase than the Mira i.

I already pointed out that the Mira i isn't full production.

A fair comparison would include the fueling station/charge station capital cost difference.

The Bolt is 0-60 under 7 seconds, the Mira i is 0-60 in 9.0 seconds.

Any other differences we should note?

The paper predicts a FCEV will be much cheaper than a BEV. Important if true, might offset some of the higher cost of fuel for the FCEV. But the real world examples seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[edatoakrun]

The primary idiocy of FCVs (IMO) has always been that they are electric cars that require expensive and inefficiently sourced electricity, for every mile driven.

A BEVx or PHEV equipped with a FC could remove this requirement for most of its miles driven, And MB looks like it is the first manufacture that understands this reality, though I think the 2017 date in the headline below is extremely unlikely:

Mercedes Will Have A Plug-In Fuel Cell SUV In 2017

June 13th, 2016 by Steve Hanley

...Now comes word that Mercedes will bring a new kind of car to market next year — a plug-in fuel cell SUV that can be powered by a battery or a hydrogen fuel cell. Based on the GLC model, it will have a range of about 300 miles before it needs to be recharged and/or refueled. Range on battery power alone is said to be 30 miles...

http://gas2.org/2016/06/13/mercedes-plug-in-fuel-cell-suv-2017/

However, the overwhelming reality is that the best way to fuel an electric vehicle will always be by charging a BEV while it drives, using kWh from the grid.

Once we are able to relegate the need for on-board energy storage to only those stretches of roads that do not have charging capability, the need for on-board energy storage in BEVs will decrease dramatically.

Very sad that the hydrogen lobby has caused us to waste so much time and money on the dead-end of developing H fuel infrastructure, when the same huge expenditures could have been used more productively to accelerate the transition from large battery packs and/or hydrocarbon (or hydrogen) fueled range extenders, to reaching the eventual goal of having electricity delivered to your BEV, while you drive.

 

[lorenfb]

The generation of BEVs going into mass production today have 200-mile batteries that weigh 960 pounds and likely will last 200,000 miles.

So. And how will that significantly improve the BEV adoption rate. Yes, many of us early adopters will find
Gen 2 BEVs a nice improvement and will upgrade. But the typical automotive ICEV consumer will still have concerns
about charging times, QC availability, home charging wiring mods & no charging for many rentals, and range
anxiety. For most consumers, the transition to another form of personal transportation must not require
any lifestyle changes, e.g. the hybrid ICEV, that a BEV requires. The "theory" is that the FCEV can potentially
reduce/eliminate some of those lifestyle changes.

 

[rcm4453]

The generation of BEVs going into mass production today have 200-mile batteries that weigh 960 pounds and likely will last 200,000 miles.

So. And how will that significantly improve the BEV adoption rate. Yes, many of us early adopters will find
Gen 2 BEVs a nice improvement and will upgrade. But the typical automotive ICEV consumer will still have concerns
about charging times, QC availability, home charging wiring mods & no charging for many rentals, and range
anxiety. For most consumers, the transition to another form of personal transportation must not require
any lifestyle changes, e.g. the hybrid ICEV, that a BEV requires. The "theory" is that the FCEV can potentially
reduce/eliminate some of those lifestyle changes.

So basically what you're saying is most consumers just want more of the same? That's all they're going to get with a FCEV. It won't be an upgrade to their ICEV. So this is the best we can do? Offer another technology that's basically no better then what we have already? Wow sounds like a GREAT plan!!! Let's go ahead and spend Billions of dollars building out that expensive H2 network so we can have something no better then what most are driving now. I can see it already.....people complaining about how much they're paying at the pump for their H2 sometime in the future!

 

[WetEV]

For most consumers, the transition to another form of personal transportation must not require
any lifestyle changes, e.g. the hybrid ICEV, that a BEV requires.

Was that true from horses to bicycles to cars?

 

[RegGuheert]

I will point out that worldwide sales of the Nissan LEAF beat worldwide sales of the Toyota Prius in the first five years of sales by 84%. Both had a pullback at this point before their big refresh and because of low gasoline prices. The difference with the LEAF versus the Prius going forward is that the Prius dominated its market. It seems unlikely that the LEAF will do the same since there are so many strong competitors entering the BEV market. But that is a good thing which will drive MORE adoption, not less.

 

[lorenfb]

For most consumers, the transition to another form of personal transportation must not require
any lifestyle changes, e.g. the hybrid ICEV, that a BEV requires.

Was that true from horses to bicycles to cars?

That's a poor analogy, i.e. most consumers at this point in time don't perceive major benefits from a BEV
as was the case for the transitions mentioned above. For the typical consumer, an ICEV satisfies all their
personal transportation needs.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

For most consumers, the transition to another form of personal transportation must not require
any lifestyle changes, e.g. the hybrid ICEV, that a BEV requires.

Was that true from horses to bicycles to cars?

That's a poor analogy, i.e. most consumers at this point in time don't perceive major benefits from a BEV
as was the case for the transitions mentioned above. For the typical consumer, an ICEV satisfies all their
personal transportation needs.

I'm not so sure. One of OTB's (Off-Track Betting) advertising slogans is "Get a Horse". This harkens back to ~100 years ago when cars were brand new. Drivers were often stranded on the side of the road. Cars were seen as inconvenient and unreliable. Horseback riders would taunt them, shouting "get a horse!". The general public certainly did not perceive a major benefit from selling their horse to buy a car. Fortunately, many of the early adopters stuck with the technology, despite its early struggles. Eventually everyone came to realize what the early adopters already knew. Cars don't become tired after an hour or so of riding, and never need to sleep. Cars can be parked for days or weeks without being tended to. Cars just allow much greater personal freedom compared to a horse.

I could list the benefits of an EV over an ICEV, but everyone here already knows them. And many of us will stick to the technology despite the early limitations of range and charging - they will get better. I don't really see a benefit for the consumer for a FCEV over an ICEV. It's just more of the same, but more expensive. You have to be almost altruistic to buy a FCEV to save the planet.